Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 03:30:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3286 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> > There is a wealth of scientific evidence that supports the current theory of
> > evolution. I'd be interested to see Steve's demonstration of how it
> > is "rotten to the core".
>
> Me too. Let's see if it can be done without "junk science". I have my doubts.
Question: What's "junk science"?
Probably important to define it/back it up before requesting that it's not
used by Steve.... Is there another thread one might use for reference of
such a definition?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) First, with out defining it crisply, you do (sort of) know what I mean and agree that it's a good idea to avoid it, right? Can I take the "I know it when I see it" cop out? :-) Kidding aside, I would tend to define it along the lines of the (...) (26 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes: <snip> (...) Me too. Let's see if it can be done without "junk science". I have my doubts. (...) This isn't a viewpoint I agree with, but it's one that is a lot more to my liking than strict creationism. (...) (26 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
